Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames • Hacker News Board

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#61

Post by webwright » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 7:03 AM UTC

tolmasky wrote: post #56

webwright wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd grabbed "celtics.com" do you think you would have a legal right to it? What about McDonalds.com? Why is this different than general brand trademarks as they relate to domain names? It seems to be a conflict if you're in the same "domain". i.e. If I grab @celtics and talk about Celtic language and culture, it shouldn't be a conflict. If I grab it to build a following about the team, I'm piggybacking on the ef…

This is nothing like that since its not a publicly-available domain (with ties to the govt. no less), but a private username. If I held a party at my house where I gave out unique nametags, the Celtics wouldn't have the right over the one that said "celtics" on it.

I guess I did mention the law, but that's not where I was going... But, yes, I know that Twitter has no legal obligation to any party. But if you agree that domain squatters should have to give up domain names to trademark holders, then the parallel holds.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#62

Post by boucher » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 7:09 AM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #59

jamiequint wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand all the vitrol... "guy who made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he didn't" The point is that the Celtics organization doesn't deserve special treatment. Why is it "utterly stupid" to think that you could get some names (whether related to an organization or not) that you could later sell? As long as you don't think you are in violation of the TOS it seems pretty logical to…

He was stupid for thinking he owned the rights to a field in Twitter's database , regardless of what it contained, or how long he held it.

Why aren't the celtics stupid for assuming they own that same right?

In fact, he's not assuming he owns it. He's just pissed that his twitter account was taken away for a pretty lame reason.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#63

Post by kragen » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 7:24 AM UTC

jamiequint wrote: post #58

kragen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said, “That someone “saw an opportunity when most people did not” doesn't really tell you anything about whether exploiting that opportunity is moral or immoral.”. Your response was a complete non-sequitur, and furthermore it appeared to attribute to me a position including material facts that are probably false. In the comment to which I am replying, you have called me an “asshole.” I appreciate your expressed con…

First, you asserted that it was wrong for Party B (your wife) to suffer because Party A (a thief) took her laptop. It was unclear whether you were only trying to point out that opportunism isn't always moral, or if you were also making the allegation that what the OP had initially done in this case was immoral. (which it is now clear you were not) I was simply comparing the morality of Twitter in this case to the mor…

You still fail at reading comprehension.

You were the one who complained about the discussion not being "constructive," not me. (In the same sentence where you called me an "asshole".) I was just pointing out that you weren't really behaving in a way that often leads to constructive discussion. Consider it a tip. No charge! Feel free to call me an "asshole" as often as you please, if that's what melts your butter. Or a "motherfucker" or "dickhead" if you like. It really doesn't matter to me. But it probably won't lead to constructive conversation!

I pretty much gave up hope of constructive discussion when you put words in my mouth, totally failed to understand what I wrote, and accused Twitter of taking a bribe. So I decided to make fun of you instead.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#64

Post by jamiequint » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 10:21 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #63

jamiequint wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, you asserted that it was wrong for Party B (your wife) to suffer because Party A (a thief) took her laptop. It was unclear whether you were only trying to point out that opportunism isn't always moral, or if you were also making the allegation that what the OP had initially done in this case was immoral. (which it is now clear you were not) I was simply comparing the morality of Twitter in this case to the mor…

You still fail at reading comprehension. You were the one who complained about the discussion not being "constructive," not me. (In the same sentence where you called me an "asshole".) I was just pointing out that you weren't really behaving in a way that often leads to constructive discussion. Consider it a tip. No charge! Feel free to call me an "asshole" as often as you please, if that's what melts your butter. Or…

I guess you have the right to believe whatever lets you sleep well at night :)

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#65

Post by jwr » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 10:46 AM UTC

So, is that a twitter name squatter whining?

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#66

Post by iamdave » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 12:34 PM UTC

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

While I share your frustration with domain squatters, and the such, it's worth noting that you ought to read between the lines with your vociferation.

His account "celtics" was being used for fans to check stats and news on the basketball team. I wouldn't call that no activity. I have the same kind of account on Tumblr for the Indianapolis Colts; pictures I take when I'm at football games or interesting news clips. It's not a dormant account. So on that note, saying "no activity" isn't correct, he was apparently doing something with the accounts.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#67

Post by GHFigs » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 11:40 PM UTC

boucher wrote: post #62

GHFigs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was stupid for thinking he owned the rights to a field in Twitter's database , regardless of what it contained, or how long he held it.

Why aren't the celtics stupid for assuming they own that same right? In fact, he's not assuming he owns it. He's just pissed that his twitter account was taken away for a pretty lame reason.

You don't get it. The Celtics don't own it either, and they'd be stupid to think they did. Twitter does. However:

"We reserve the right to reclaim usernames on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those usernames." -- http://twitter.com/terms

That gives them a pretty good reason to think it's OK to ask Twitter for the name. Bear in mind that Twitter has this right whether it is in the TOS or not, and that they likewise have the right to not reclaim usernames on behalf of trademark holders. If the situation had not been one where the user was obviously using the name to reference the trademark, maybe they wouldn't have.

And yes, he was making the assumption that he owned the names. How else can you complain that you've been deprived of something valuable that it was your right to have if you don't believe you own it?